Advertising

The first one does fix a possible stack overflow (albeit of one NULL,
not arbitrary content, so I don't think it's exploitable). We may want
to do:
diff --git a/diff.c b/diff.c
index 54d5308..a03744b 100644
--- a/diff.c
+++ b/diff.c
@@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void run_external_diff(const char *pgm,
int complete_rewrite,
struct diff_options *o)
{
- const char *spawn_arg[10];
+ const char *spawn_arg[11];
int retval;
const char **arg = &spawn_arg[0];
struct diff_queue_struct *q = &diff_queued_diff;
as a fix for maint/2.0.0 in the interim. I can write a commit message
for that if you're interested.
> * fc/publish-vs-upstream (2014-04-21) 8 commits
> - sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks
> - sha1_name: simplify track finding
> - sha1_name: cleanup interpret_branch_name()
> - branch: display publish branch
> - push: add --set-publish option
> - branch: add --set-publish-to option
> - Add concept of 'publish' branch
> - t5516 (fetch-push): fix test restoration
>
> Add branch@{publish}; it seems that this is somewhat different from
> Ram and Peff started working on. There were many discussion
> messages going back and forth but it does not appear that the
> design issues have been worked out among participants yet.
If you are waiting on me, I do not have much else to say on this topic.
@{publish} as specified by Felipe is not useful to me, and I would
continue to pursue @{push} separately as "the remote-tracking branch of
where you would push to". I think there is room for both concepts.
As for the patches themselves, I have not reviewed them carefully, and
would prefer not to. As I mentioned before, though, I would prefer the
short "@{p}" not be taken for @{publish} until it has proven itself.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html